Bondarenko Dmitri M. Homoarchy

109
The homoarchic character of the phenomenon Claessen and
Skalnнk designated as “the early state” is also stressed, e.g., in its such heavily
criticized but still influential “classical” concepts as those of Elman Service
(1971/1962; 1975), Morton Fried (1970/1960; 1967), and Robert Carneiro
(1970), notwithstanding the significant difference in those scholars’ general
theoretical premises: seeing the state power as basically either consensual or
coercive. In his recent publication Robert Hommon (2005: 24–26, 28)
concludes that the ability to build up “stratified control hierarchies” is a
“uniquely human feature” which first revealed itself about 6,000 years ago and
which, contrary to actually all the other factors of state formation usually
acknowledged, is “essential” to the state’s “emergence and functioning”.
Hence, what follows from our analysis of the 13 th – 19 th centuries Benin
Kingdom is that the homoarchic early state “competes” not only with a variety
of complex decentralized heterarchic socio-political systems (for examples see,
e.g., contributions in Ehrenreich et al. 1995; as well as: Korotayev 1995c;
1996; Thevenot 1996: Ch. 7; Possehl 1998; Schoenfelder 2003 78 ) but also with
some forms of complex homoarchic socio-political organization. Besides the
megacommunity, among homoarchic alternatives to the early state, particularly,
the systems based on deeply elaborated rigid cast division (Quigley 1999: 114–
169; Kobishchanov 2000: 64), or on transformation of a complex chiefdom into
a “supercomplex chiefdom” (Kradin 1992; 2000a; 2000c; 2002b; Kradin et al.
2000: 274–310; 2003: 11–14, 50–62, 100–113; Trepavlov 1995; Skrynnikova
1997) can be distinguished. The societies of these (and obviously some other,
not mentioned here) types, not being early (archaic) states, were not less
complex, not less centralized, and not less homoarchic.